Your unconventional beliefs.

[koan]

If you don't believe in premarital sex and also don't believe in marriage... do you believe in sex? Just sayin'... Buddhists would be happy with you because we'd all stop procreating and the human race can finally be at peace.

1) I believe that any Buddhist should be for the destruction of the human race since samsara and the earthly world is a test upon passing which you no longer have to be reborn so if the entire human race stops existing the Buddhists should feel we got it right.

2) I believe in reincarnation. I have a few past lives that I recall though none have been as someone famous. I was a pretty awesome 'kitchen witch' at one point though, who survived being burned at the stake but not without some hatred for all things that resembled people.

3) I believe the world is subjective and can be altered by observation. Quantum physics is starting to make that belief sound less absurd.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

1. Most etiquette rules and what we consider "good manners" are a load of shit. Examples include blessing people when they sneeze, saying "please" before or after a request to make it sound nicer, and many others that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Well there is no higher meaning to them, true, except for the simple idea that some humans like being polite to each other. It reaffirms the social contract, increases social cooperation. Social capital.

Personally I am reluctant to participate in them however. I think my goodwill is implied in my actions, and doesn't need to be redundantly expressed.

3. The government should not recognize marriage as an institution. There should be no financial incentives or visitation rights for married couples. Individuals should be seen by the government as just that: individuals. The institution of marriage should be solely a religious institution, compoletely separate from the state.

I agree that marriage should be a separate process and concept from government. It solves the problem of gay marriage.

Churches and ministers oversee religious marriages. If people want to be formally united it should be through an entity other than the government, though this takes away all notions of officiality, but there never was any anyway.

Marriage is an empty construct outside of religion/social government and consumerism. If you want to be together, then be together. What more do you need?

5. Not washing your hands after urinating and/or defecating is completely acceptable as long as you don't get urine and/or feces on your hands.

Door knobs. And handles.

Plus it is an opportunity to wash as most people don't wash their hands throughout the day until they do go the bathroom. I make it a habit to wash them first thing coming home.

6. When person X does a favor for person Y, and person Y is not thankful for what person X does, person X has no right to be upset with person Y. Genuine favors done out of kindness should expect nothing in return, including thanksgiving. The reward is knowing you helped someone.

I agree with this too, for similar reasons as your first topic.

Though I still like to express my gratitude when I feel it is something exceptional, and would like the same in return.

Living life has consequences and is one big fleeting desire.

Truth.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I believe that the U.S. founding fathers did their best to create a communist country before communism existed.

I believe in the ability to access alternate dimensions during sleep, or something like that.

I believe that extirpated top predators should be reintroduced throughout their native ranges.

I believe it's perfectly acceptable to not shower on a daily basis, both from a practical and health standpoint.

 

[snafupants]

I believe that the U.S. founding fathers did their best to create a communist country before communism existed.

I believe in the ability to access alternate dimensions during sleep, or something like that.

I believe that extirpated top predators should be reintroduced throughout their native ranges.

I believe it's perfectly acceptable to not shower on a daily basis, both from a practical and health standpoint.

I believe (anaphora continuity) I enjoy that list.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I guess that's just it...I simply don't value sex. I get that risks must be taken sometimes; premarital sex just doesn't seem worth it to me if I can just wait until marriage and then have as much fun as I want. In the mean time, I have plenty of other ways to have just as much fun without running the risk of creating a new life or becoming overly attached to a woman that I won't spend the rest of my life with.

And then again, there are the religious reasons as well, but that's not relevant to the conversation.

Religious reasons are irrelevant, as religion is completely irrational, so... that thing I just said.

 

[redbaron]

I do find it quite interesting that whenever I state my views on sexuality (be that sexual orientation, premarital sex, or any other sexual topic), people always get really riled up, and it ends up turning into a huge debate. But if I state that I like Justin Bieber or that I don't always wash my hands every time I use the bathroom, no one gives a fuck.

1. I don't have a problem with your views on sexuality. It's the way you imply that pre-marital sex in and of itself has negative consequences. What negative consequence comes from me having sex with my girlfriend prior to us being married, that is a result of the actual sex?

2. Justin Bieber is trash. Unless someone writes and performs their own songs and knows how to play with other musicians, I don't consider them a talented musician. Having a singing voice is great, but only impressive if they are a good singer (he's not). The songs are fucking boring, generic crap.

 

[EmergingAlbert]

If you don't believe in premarital sex and also don't believe in marriage... do you believe in sex? Just sayin'... Buddhists would be happy with you because we'd all stop procreating and the human race can finally be at peace.

No, I don't think you read my original post all the way through. I believe in marriage; just not in the legal sense. Marriage should be left up to religious organizations for religious people, and for non-religious people, they can make their own rules. I think marriage can be a beautiful thing, but the government should stay out of it. I guess that's just the libertarian in me.

 

[EmergingAlbert]

1. I don't have a problem with your views on sexuality. It's the way you imply that pre-marital sex in and of itself has negative consequences. What negative consequence comes from me having sex with my girlfriend prior to us being married, that is a result of the actual sex?\

When a couple has sex, large amounts of oxytocin are released in the body. Oxytocin creates human attachment (which is also why it's released during childbirth and breastfeeding in women, to bond with their child). The more you have sex with someone, the more oxytocin is released, and the more attached you get to that person. If you aren't married to that person (i.e., you aren't planning on spending the rest of your life with them), you don't need to get more and more attached to them. If you do, it will be harder to leave them if and when the time comes. I've seen too many couples stay in abusive relationships, and when you ask them if they're having sex, the answer is almost always "yes."

Aside from the possibility of pregnancy and STD's, that one consequence (unnecessary attachment) will always be there. Yes, you can numb yourself to it, but that usually requires lots of sex with lots of people, which may decrease the oxytocin release, but then you're replacing that risk with the other risks (pregnancy and STD's). Plus, if you've numbed yourself, that's going to suck if/when you do get married and want to make love to your spouse.

 

[EmergingAlbert]

Unless someone writes and performs their own songs and knows how to play with other musicians, I don't consider them a talented musician.

That's quite a high standard you hold there. So what you're telling me is that neither Frank Sinatra nor Elvis Presley were talented?

 

[redbaron]

When a couple has sex, large amounts of oxytocin are released in the body. Oxytocin creates human attachment (which is also why it's released during childbirth and breastfeeding in women, to bond with their child). The more you have sex with someone, the more oxytocin is released, and the more attached you get to that person. If you aren't married to that person (i.e., you aren't planning on spending the rest of your life with them), you don't need to get more and more attached to them. If you do, it will be harder to leave them if and when the time comes. I've seen too many couples stay in abusive relationships, and when you ask them if they're having sex, the answer is almost always "yes."

Aside from the possibility of pregnancy and STD's, that one consequence (unnecessary attachment) will always be there. Yes, you can numb yourself to it, but that usually requires lots of sex with lots of people, which may decrease the oxytocin release, but then you're replacing that risk with the other risks (pregnancy and STD's). Plus, if you've numbed yourself, that's going to suck if/when you do get married and want to make love to your spouse.

I've had 2 long-term girlfriends, neither break-up was a bad break-up and we had regular sex. I regret neither relationship and the good outweighs the bad, both sexually and non-sexually. I would have regretted not having sex, and I would have missed out on 2 great relationships.

Abusive relationships don't occur or continue simply because people have sex. In any case, considering you have apparently have little to no experience with pre-marital sex and haven't had any long term sexual relationships, I won't hold it against you for believing that baloney.

That's quite a high standard you hold there. So what you're telling me is that neither Frank Sinatra nor Elvis Presley were talented?

Can't say I like or even respect Elvis' work.

Frank is a great vocalist, he uses outstanding phrasing and he makes the most of his voice. He is definitely talented. He didn't write any songs entirely as far as I know, but he had a hand in writing the bulk of some of his work. I don't doubt that he could have written full songs if he wanted to. Definitely talented.

 

[EmergingAlbert]

I would have regretted not having sex, and I would have missed out on 2 great relationships.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly here, but are you saying that you would have missed out on the entire relationship simply by not having sex? Or just that the relationship wouldn't have been as great without sex?

Abusive relationships don't occur or continue simply because people have sex.

I never said that's the only reason that abusive relationships continue. I don't recall ever using the word "only." I also never said anything about sex being the reason they occur in the first place.

He is definitely talented. He didn't write any songs entirely as far as I know, but he had a hand in writing the bulk of some of his work.

The bulk? I was under the impression that he had only helped write two of his songs ("I'm a Fool to Want You" and "I Don't Stand a Ghost of a Chance with You"). And by "helped," I mean "changed around a couple of lyrics that were already written."

 

[redbaron]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly here, but are you saying that you would have missed out on the entire relationship simply by not having sex? Or just that the relationship wouldn't have been as great without sex?

Sex was part of the relationship. We wouldn't have been partners without it, and we were partners partly because of it. Sexual attraction is human, in hindsight we wouldn't have ended up married regardless, because of issues that had nothing to do with sex.

One of the best things about the relationship was the sex. Maybe you should try it some time, you might just enjoy it.

I never said that's the only reason that abusive relationships continue. I don't recall ever using the word "only." I also never said anything about sex being the reason they occur in the first place.

Thanks for highlighting my initial point way back earlier. That the points you're making against pre-marital sex really aren't worth anything, because there are many factors in why relationships are bad, the reasons behind attachment. That was what I was trying to highlight, which it seems I now have.

The way you worded it was that pre-marital sex contributes to abusive relationships. This could just as easily apply to marital sex as well - it's a dumb argument.

The bulk? I was under the impression that he had only helped write two of his songs ("I'm a Fool to Want You" and "I Don't Stand a Ghost of a Chance with You"). And by "helped," I mean "changed around a couple of lyrics that were already written."

I accidentally made it more ambiguous with my wording. I should have just said he wrote some of his work and left out the bulk part. I don't really care what or which regardless, there are outliers to any criteria.

Regardless, it's not hard to write songs and it's only one part of what I consider talent. It seems like initially you were annoyed at the implication I might not find him (Sinatra) talented, but when I explain why I do, now you want to argue over semantics

 

[EmergingAlbert]

The way you worded it was that pre-marital sex contributes to abusive relationships.

Contributes to--yes. Causes--no.

It seems like initially you were annoyed at the implication I might not find him (Sinatra) talented, but when I explain why I do, now you want to argue over semantics

I wasn't really annoyed...just surprised when you said that only singer-songwriters are talented musicians. My argument over semantics is unrelated. I'm an INTP...I'm obsessed with semantics :-P

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Everything can be reduced to causal effects.

Humans can be explained by their psychological processes, experiences and environments. Everything one does, everything one believes, everything one enjoys, everything one is-is due to a causal effect.

Is there anything genuine and intentional about the human experience?

 

[Proletar]

Everything can be reduced to causal effects.

Humans can be explained by their psychological processes, experiences and environments. Everything one does, everything one believes, everything one enjoys, everything one is-is due to a causal effect.

Is there anything genuine and intentional about the human experience?

I hate this kind of reasoning.

Just because you can psychologize any issue doesn't mean that it doesn't hold merit. "Oh, you are feeling nervous since you're being taken into the gas-chamber? Well, that's only because of a signal-substance called adrenaline. Now tell me about your mother."

 

[snafupants]

I believe in magic in a young girl's heart.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I hate this kind of reasoning.

Just because you can psychologize any issue doesn't mean that it doesn't hold merit. "Oh, you are feeling nervous since you're being taken into the gas-chamber? Well, that's only because of a signal-substance called adrenaline. Now tell me about your mother."

That's not what I meant.

I mean people express themselves through and identify with certain values and interests. Some push them hard, as seen in the prejudiced. But it's ridiculous when you consider that the only reason they hold those values and love those interests is because the flow of life, the uncontrollable factors that led them there.

I'm talking about dogmatic pride in a world where free will seems questionable and everything seems deterministic.



Pretty sure you mean abusive invalidation / minimization.

 

[Jennywocky]

I believe in magic in a young girl's heart.

SQUEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqnv3P3DB2E







..... I feel very deprived...

 

[Proletar]

@EyeSeeCold: What I mean is that people may look like ants or whatever when seen from above, but that doesn't mean that their actions are meaningless, at the very least not to them. So sort of B + C instead of A + B... If I've understood what you've said at all.




Batteries not included. Adult assembly required.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@EyeSeeCold: What I mean is that people may look like ants or whatever when seen from above, but that doesn't mean that their actions are meaningless, at the very least not to them. So sort of B + C instead of A + B... If I've understood what you've said at all.




Batteries not included. Adult assembly required.

No I still don't think you interpreted me right, and I'm not understanding you here.

I think it would be better if you revisited the post and clarified how you perceived it, without judging or critiquing it though.

 

[Proletar]

Alright then. I'll give it another try on a molecular level (with soft colours for your pleasure):

Everything can be reduced to causal effects.

Percieved by me as "everything can be explained" - which to me means is mostly reduced to dismissing. A casual explanation (an executing/finishing procedure) to any serious problem a person is having, is in fact an invalidation. And since those problems are the only ones that actually really needs explaining, many of the reported results would be invalidations.

Humans can be explained by their psychological processes, experiences and environments.

'Explained' is the key word here. Remember that a lot of angles are active at once at any given matter. The top psychologists of today have not been able to fully penetrate the minds of serial-killers such as Charles Manson or Ted Bundy. Of course, getting away with that is much harder than to just judge someone.

Everything one does, everything one believes, everything one enjoys, everything one is-is due to a causal effect.

Sure, action and consequence is also active in the psychological mind, but that doesn't mean it can be explained. How can one human brain sum up enough consciousness to understand the workings of another human brain? Hell, I don't even understand myself at times.

Is there anything genuine and intentional about the human experience?

Yes sir, yes it is... But not on the same plane. Again, a lot of angles are in action at once. From the perspective of an allseeing (!) outside investigator, the subject becomes predictable and therefore in the vision becomes a result of causal effect, but not at all to the subject himself. Since he is not, on the other hand, observing himself, but rather in the centre of his own movement at all times, he isn't a subject to causal effect in himself.

So really, can be explained? We seem to have different interpretations of these words. So my closing point would be that the explanations given wouldn't be satisfactory.

That being said, a non-100% explanation doesn't always turn you down.

"Hey, Bob. I really, really don't feel well right now. I'm about to throw up and I haven't been able to sleep for weeks.
"Relax, that's completely normal. After all, you have been going through a lot of stress lately. We're off to the gas-chamber for gods sake!"

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Alright, so you do see what I was saying as invalidation and dismissal. I don't disagree with your reasoning, but I disagree with your application and conclusions. They don't relate to the context I was putting my ideas in.


My context was like I said: dogmatic, prejudice pride. I don't think people should be dogmatic, prejudiced, or overly prideful about their situations, person, values, or interests, because they are not in full control of the factors of life that made things that way.

"Yeah! Woo! I love my country ! USA USA USA Every other country sucks, USA is the best and I'm the best cause I'm from USA"
"Christians are God's Children and we'll inherit the kingdom of Heaven, everyone else is going to hell".​

The context you are using deals with specifics.

"A serious problem someone is having",
"reported results" ,
"penetrate the minds of serial killers",
"understand the workings of another human brain".​

I wasn't referring to specifics like that. I'm not talking about actually sitting in a chair and analyzing someone's specific life.


The general, wide-perspective, society-wise reduction of human behavior through determinism. Not taking the significance out of someone's problems, emotions, sufferings, or psychological stress.

Yes sir, yes it is... But not on the same plane. Again, a lot of angles are in action at once. From the perspective of an allseeing (!) outside investigator, the subject becomes predictable and therefore in the vision becomes a result of causal effect, but not at all to the subject himself. Since he is not, on the other hand, observing himself, but rather in the centre of his own movement at all times, he isn't in himself.

Meta-Consciousness, Libertarianism and Determinism

 

[Proletar]

Alright, so you do see what I was saying as invalidation and dismissal. I don't disagree with your reasoning, but I disagree with your application and conclusions. They don't relate to the context I was putting my ideas in.


My context was like I said: dogmatic, prejudice pride. I don't think people should be dogmatic, prejudiced, or overly prideful about their situations, person, values, or interests, because they are not in full control of the factors of life that made things that way.

"Yeah! Woo! I love my country ! USA USA USA Every other country sucks, USA is the best and I'm the best cause I'm from USA"
"Christians are God's Children and we'll inherit the kingdom of Heaven, everyone else is going to hell".​

(LOL on the indent-bit. That's the best example of US-patriotism I've seen in a long time. ^^)

See, this is how most of the discussions with me end. I tend to agree, but not to 100%. There is always something I'm not satisfied with, and it's mostly due to linguistics, or just plain old splitting hairs. You are saying that the principal of causal effect can be a good tool in investigating the true nature of movements that are given an idealised appearance (correct?) and I say that it's an easy tool to abuse.

That's just a side effect of good tools. That's why guns have safety on them, or why Stalin was able to use the communist movement to enslave Russia. Tools equal power, and power corrupts.

The context you are using deals with specifics.

"A serious problem someone is having",
"reported results" ,
"penetrate the minds of serial killers",
"understand the workings of another human brain".​

I wasn't referring to specifics like that. I'm not talking about actually sitting in a chair and analyzing someone's specific life.

But you said everything. :/

The thing is that everything can be reduced to causal effect and analyzed, with the right observation, but that that's just one layer of the onion. (My new thread about the unified science (that no-one seems to be responding to) is an attempt to deal with this global one-sidedness of sciences)

The general, wide-perspective, society-wise reduction of human behavior through determinism. Not taking the significance out of someone's problems, emotions, sufferings, or psychological stress.

Meta-Consciousness, Libertarianism and Determinism

That's an interesting subject. I'll burrough into it later.


Edit: The 'the layer of the onion' was a bad metaphore. I realise that now.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

(LOL on the indent-bit. That's the best example of US-patriotism I've seen in a long time. ^^)

See, this is how most of the discussions with me end. I tend to agree, but not to 100%. There is always something I'm not satisfied with, and it's mostly due to linguistics, or just plain old splitting hairs. You are saying that the principal of causal effect can be a good tool in investigating the true nature of movements that are given an idealised appearance (correct?)

That is the crux of the misinterpretation; that wasn't my intention at all. Psychology and logical cause-effect are useful tools to investigate and understand things, but that was not my focus- I am not advocating everyone go out and start psychologically analyzing people and start finding their cause-effects relationships and reduce people to that.

I am advocating that the world has causal effects on people("you're a Christian/American because your parents were" etc), thus we should be more modest and self-aware when it comes to our situations("if things were different you'd be a Buddhist/Indian").

and I say that it's an easy tool to abuse.

That's just a side effect of good tools. That's why guns have safety on them, or why Stalin was able to use the communist movement to enslave Russia. Tools equal power, and power corrupts.

Yeah I don't disagree. For immediate relevance you could even take MBTI(or any typology); there are ethical issues with it being implemented since it's just another way for people to label, be ignorant, opportunist(employers), and prejudiced.

But you said everything. :/

The thing is that everything can be reduced to causal effect and analyzed, with the right observation, but that that's just one layer of the onion. (My new thread about the unified science (that no-one seems to be responding to) is an attempt to deal with this global one-sidedness of sciences)

That's an interesting subject. I'll burrough into it later.

"Everything" as in life in general, not every specific circumstance.


I was thinking about posting there but I didn't have enough material for a post. I was going to say science is too broad nowadays for one person, but now I wonder if you mean unification in another way.

Edit: The 'the layer of the onion' was a bad metaphore. I realise that now.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO76yRO8HVE

 

[Teohrn]

I believe that the best human society would be a liberal meritocracy. Basically, it would be a Meritocracy with great emphasis on the liberty of people to do what they want to do. In other words, there would be no petty and unnecessary rules like we have today. So there would be relatively much freedom, more than there is today.

Spoiler

It may be an unconventional idea, but it certainly is not a bad one. It is a completely pragmatic political system which does not allow much room for wishy washy feelings and ideological adherence (when ideological adherence becomes a belief in a closed system, much like being a supporter of a certain football team or believing in a religion). The inability of ideologists to change their opinion despite the facts they are given is by no means any good. Pragmatism coldly takes what is best and is motivated by a far higher goal: the ultimate common good. I believe such adherence exists because humans are wired to group mentality, us and them.

The goal of meritocracy is not meritocracy for the sake of meritocracy itself. A meritocracy would not be a closed system, which makes it so good. It, like for instance science, bends to the realities of the world. It works towards the truth and the common good. Therefore, it would change itself or dissolve itself if it were proven to not be efficient enough. Meritocracy, unlike f.e. Marxism, is not a rigid idology which asserts that it is completely true based on nothing but an infinite regress of assertions. It is not an ideological cult for people to worship.

Many would be exempted from voting, namely people too stupid and too ignorant to vote wisely. The reason stupid people and ignorant people get to vote is obviously not because it helps to get the best candidates in power. Stupid people get to vote, even when they should not, because of altruism. Altruism is a virtue, but it can be blind and there is no logical motivation behind it. Stupid people would not vote in a meritocracy. Only those whose knowledge is relevant and whose intellect is high enough would vote. The former implies that only economists would vote for the minister of finance.